Dr Laura's Biological Error Debunked

It was once remarked by Dr. Laura, "What I did say is that when an individual is not so drawn to a member of the opposite sex, in biology, that's some kind of error." Dr. Laura's distaste of Homosexuality is nothing new, and there has been much advocacy against her on part of these views. Others, who hold similar views, have defended her opinions. However, what she said her, it may hold some kernal of truth. It may very well be truth, that biologically, it is an "error," if such a term has any real meaning, for someone to be Homosexual. By pursuing an individual of the same sex, procreation cannot occur. It becomes an impossibility in this scenario. If the natural purpose of every organism is to procreate, that their offspring may also procreate indefinitely, then I have no argument. If it happens to be true, that the purpose of life is simply procreation, of reproducing the old generation, then I cannot deny the truth of the statement, that Homosexuality is "some kind of error." I can present no argument that I genuinely believe, no objection that I sincerely hold as truth. That is, at least, if it is true, that life holds no purpose than creating offspring.

It is the belief of Dr. Laura, that it is a biological error, not to engage in activities which produce children. If we are to accept this morbid description, of a possible meaning of life, and if we accept it to be true, that procreation is the only purpose, then we must also accept that a bond of love holds no purpose than this. When we see a lover touch the face of the person of their desires, seeing the gentle fingers caress the soft skin, we must turn away from what our heart tells us, we must believe that our eyes are lying to us, and we must reason, that since affection and kindness produce no children, they are "some kind of biological error." When the same lover sits alone, in her room, crying over memories, mourning over thoughts, knowing that her love is far away -- when that same lover must spend days in total solitary, away from the one who makes the colors in her world brighter, going through old poetry, looking at old pictures -- when a person is poor in those things which enrich the heart, because they are away from their lover, then we must believe Dr. Laura, that it is "some kind of biological error." It is true, that a lover who thinks about the one whay may not come back, is enough to bring out sympathy from every humane thinker, it is enough to bring out tears in those who have known such pains.... but since it produces no children, Dr. Laura will call it "a biological error," and everything that we once knew to be life becomes sacrilige in her black god's ideology.

By her own definition of a "biological error," everything that creativity has spawned becomes heresy, everything that an independent mind can create becomes taboo, and those things which make the heart soar with euphoria are condemned. Poetry becomes vanity, art becomes self-loathing, and music becomes irrelevant. Since they are incapable of producing more children, of increasing the population, they are unimportant. Can anyone be so brazenly cold, to hear the serenity of music, to see the beauty of art, to feel the tranquil nature of poetry -- to understand the depth and meaning of expression, and to reply, "This is but an error in biology." What sort of human being can be so deaf to beauty, so blind to peace, so desensitized against the very things that bring purpose? I do not believe that a person can be so depraved. It is but natural to desire to express our heart, to speak our minds, to act as we like, so long as no others are hurt. Every law which disallows the expression of the heart and mind have been known as the Censorship Laws. But every law which disallows acting as we like, so long as we do not infringe on the liberty of others, these laws are known as the Totalitarian Laws. Both are guilty of the same crime: limiting happiness for some superficial taboo. I oppose the first as much as I oppose the second.

It may very well be true that Homosexuality can be called "an error in biology," but then we would have to call every artistic expression, every gentle touch of affection, sympathy for pain, empathy for life -- these, also, must be regarded as "errors in biology." Whether this is true or not, I will not refrain from saying what I think, I will not hold back from what my heart feels. If I were to do this, I would be a traitor of thought, and a coward of love. Since it is in every man's own interest to be honest with himself, poetry becomes an avenue of expression, artwork becomes a release of emotion, music becomes the explosion of thought... They may very well not relate to the procreation of the species, but happiness and peace are themselves intrinsic values, that we should never rest in seeking. To admit exhaustion to the forces of iniquity would be the ultimate surrender...

If a man finds it, in his heart, in his mind, that he is attracted to those of the same gender, then we should do nothing to prohibit this. If he can feel the same for a man, the way a man can feel for a woman, then why is it that some refer to it as a profanity? It would be committing a disgrace to truth and justice if one were to call such a profanity. When a man loves a woman, runs his hands up and down her body, gazes unendingly into her eyes, plays with her hair, caresses her face, and when she does the same to him, these are images that few can deny as love. The emotions of peace and wholeness that take over our minds, at the thought of such actions, these are but the same emotions that a man can still have for a man, or a woman for a woman. No relationship can be condemned as a source of obsenity, when the partners involved hold a genuine affection for each other. Perhaps the message I am trying to express is this... That sex and love are nothing to be ashamed of, regardless of what we are told, by our peers, by our teachers, by our families and communities. To condemn a man for choosing to love men instead of women, is no different than to condemn a man for choosing to express himself with poetry instead of art. It is but a preference, and no one suffers at the choice of either. The only time that suffering can occur in this scenario is when the man is forced to choose one over the other, due to Totalitarian Law.

Liberty, justice, and peace may very well be the greatest standards that we seek. To deny a man his right to express himself, to ban one sexual orientation or one form of art, is to commit a crime against liberty and justice. It has only been weeks since the United States Supreme Court has decided that homosexuality cannot be banned. Up until this time, millions of people have been executed, denied employment, or imprisoned for their sexuality. And we cannot think that this is any different than when a man is discriminated against for the opinions he harbors. There are still people in prison today, for what the state has so lovingly called "crimes against nature." Those who have engaged in Homosexual, or even taboo sexualities, have been imprisoned for up to years. This is not some foreign activity of centuries past. Rather, it is something that the government has actively imprisoned people for in the past centuries. It is a draconian and arcane method of government, as it is opposed to all principles of liberty, justice and peace. It is a violation of the mind's need for freedom, of the heart's dreams of tranquility. To deny a man his right to sexuality is just as profane an action it is to deny a man his right to expression.

Listen to me! These people are your brothers and sisters, they are your mothers and fathers, they are your sons and daughters! I admit, you may not be related by blood, but what you do share together is infinitely greater than the bond of blood. Together, you all endure the fears of pain and misery, the worry of the fate of those around you exists to all of you, the dreams of a better life without suffering and toil are not unknown to the others.... Know this, that they feel the same as you do, that a man's sexuality does not destroy his natural attraction to goodness, that whatever a man does by himself alone, he may very well still hold charity and generosity in heart towards humanity, because he is himself, a Humanitarian. There may very well be murdering or pillaging Homosexuals, I cannot deny this. But the same can be said of Heterosexuals, and I would be a fool and tyrant to condemn every straight person as a murderer or a thief. But... if you must know anything, know this: that those preferences or characteristics of a person are rarely intrinsically bad, and so long as a man's personal habits do not cause suffering or pain to others, it must be truly a sin to judge them as cruel, to hold them up as a symbol of brutality, to hold them down as a plague to this world. Whatever you do to the friends of humanity, because of their undeniable nature which harms none -- whatever you do to these comrades of goodness, understand that you are only destroying the principles that will lead to a better world, and you are hindering the progress of every thinker and lover.

Whatever harm you inflict on someone because of a choice they made that causes no misery to others, you are only doing a disservice to the cause of humanity.